Contempt of Court

Background

• In England contempt of court is a common law principle that seeks to protect the judicial power of the king, initially exercised by himself, and later by a panel of judges who acted in his name. Violation of the judges’ orders was considered an affront to the king himself.
• Over time, any kind of disobedience to judges, or obstruction of the implementation of their directives, or comments and actions that showed disrespect towards them came to be punishable.

Statutory basis for contempt of court

• There were pre-Independence laws of contempt in India. Besides the early High Courts, the courts of some princely states also had such laws.
• When the Constitution was adopted, contempt of court was made one of the restrictions on freedom of speech and expression.
• Article 129 of the Constitution conferred on the Supreme Court the power to punish contempt of itself. Article 215 conferred a corresponding power on the High Courts.
• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, gives statutory backing to the idea.

What are the kinds of contempt of court?

The law codifying contempt classifies it as civil and criminal.

• Civil contempt is committed when someone wilfully disobeys a court order, or wilfully breaches an undertaking given to court.
• Criminal contempt consists of three forms:
  • (a) words, written or spoken, signs and actions that “scandalise” or “tend to scandalise” or “lower” or “tends to lower” the authority of any court
  • (b) prejudices or interferes with any judicial proceeding
  • (c) interferes with or obstructs the administration of justice.
• Making allegations against the judiciary or individual judges, attributing motives to judgments and judicial functioning and any scurrilous attack on the conduct of judges are normally considered matters that scandalise the judiciary.
• The rationale for this provision is that courts must be protected from tendentious attacks that lower its authority, defame its public image and make the public lose faith in its impartiality.
• The punishment for contempt of court is simple imprisonment for a term up to six months and/or a fine of up to ₹. 2,000.

What does scandalizing or lowering the authority of court mean?

• Scandalizing might manifest itself in various ways but in substance, it is an attack on individual judges in particular or the court as a whole, with or without reference to a particular case, by casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or the ability of the judges.
• Such conduct is punished as criminal contempt for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the minds of common people and thereby shatters confidence of the people in the judiciary.

Initiation of criminal contempt?

• The prior consent of the Attorney General is required for the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt action in a case.

Procedure for bringing a criminal contempt of court case against an individual

• The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, lays down the law on contempt of court. Section 15 of the legislation describes the procedure on how a case for contempt of court can be initiated.
• In the case of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, and in the case of High Courts, the Advocate General, may bring in a motion before the court for initiating a case of criminal contempt.
• However, if the motion is brought by any other person, the consent in writing of the Attorney General or the Advocate General is required.
• The motion or reference made for initiating the case will have to specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty.

Why does the Attorney General have to grant consent

• The procedure in cases of criminal contempt of court, which means the publication of material that scandalises or lowers the dignity of the court or prejudices or interferes with the proceedings of the court, the consent of the Attorney General is required under the law.
• The objective behind requiring the consent of the Attorney General before taking cognizance of a complaint is to save the time of the court. Judicial time is squandered if frivolous petitions are made and the court is the first forum for bringing them in.
• The AG’s consent is meant to be a safeguard against frivolous petitions, as it is deemed that the AG, as an officer of the court, will independently ascertain whether the complaint is indeed valid. 

Is the AG’s consent mandatory for all contempt of court cases

• The AG’s consent is mandatory when a private citizen wants to initiate a case of contempt of court against a person. Before such a plea can be filed, the Attorney General must sign off on the complaint, determining if it requires the attention of the court at all.
• However, when the court itself initiates a contempt of court case the AG’s consent is not required. This is because the court is exercising its inherent powers under the Constitution to punish for contempt and such Constitutional powers cannot be restricted because the AG declined to grant consent.

What happens if the AG denies consent

• If the AG denies consent, the matter all but ends. The law has a limitation period of one year for bringing in action against an individual.
• The complainant can, however, separately bring the issue to the notice of the court and urge the court to take suo motu (on its own motion) cognizance.
• Article 129 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to initiate contempt cases on its own, independent of the motion brought before it by the AG or with the consent of the AG.
• The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself,” Article 129 states.

What happens after the AG has granted consent

• Once the consent of the Attorney General is given in writing, a notice under The Contempt of Courts Act is served personally on the person against whom the proceedings are sought to be initiated by the court. If the court decides not to serve the notice personally, the law requires the court to record the reasons for it.
• If the court is satisfied that the alleged contemnor is likely to abscond or evade judicial proceedings, it can order attachment of property of a value that it deems reasonable.
• Once the notice is served, the alleged contemnor may file an affidavit in support of his defence, explaining the nature and circumstances of her remarks. The case is required under the Act to be heard by a Bench of at least two judges. The court then takes into account any evidence available to check the affidavit, and pass appropriate orders.